BADRI PARSHAD Vs. RAGHBIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants/defendants are aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 01.11.2018, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar as well as judgment and decree dated 31.03.2015, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar, whereby the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was decreed.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the case are that respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for symbolic possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 08.11.2002, pleaded to be executed by defendant no.1 Badri Parshad in respect to a plot, as detailed in the plaint. It is pleaded that the appellant/defendant no.1 was the owner in possession of the said plot and he agreed to sell the same to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.55,000/-, which was received by defendant no.1 from the plaintiff in the presence of witnesses at the time of execution of agreement to sell dated 08.11.2002, which was scribed by Narender Kumar Jain, Deed Writer. It is pleaded that the actual physical possession of the plot in question was also handed over by defendant no.1 to the plaintiff at the time of execution of agreement to sell dated 08.11.2002. Defendant no.1 agreed that the sale deed in respect to the said plot could be executed and registered at the wish of the plaintiff and in case defendant no.1 did not come forward for the same, the plaintiff would be entitled to get the sale deed registered through Court and defendant no.1 would be responsible for all costs and damages. As per the agreement, the plaintiff was entitled to get the sale deed executed in his own favour or in favour of any person of his choice. The agreement was witnessed by Raghbir Sharma PW3 and Suresh. The plaintiff is pleaded to have left a nine foot (9ft.) wide plot for passage due to the difficulty being faced by the residents of the locality. Remaining six foot (6 ft.) wide portion of the plot is claimed to be in actual physical possession of the plaintiff since 08.11.2002. Plaintiff claimed to be the owner in possession of the entire 15' x 60' plot in dispute pursuant to agreement to sell dated 08.11.2002. It is claimed that defendant no.1 was posted at Palwal and used to come to Hisar on weekends and holidays. From 08.11.2002 till 30.01.2010 defendant no.1 never denied or refused to have the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff, however, surprisingly since 31.01.2010, defendant no.1 in connivance with defendants no.2 & 3 sought to dispossess the plaintiff from the plot in dispute. Defendant no.1 altogether denied to have the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, it is pleaded, always remained ready and willing to execute the sale deed but defendant no.1 tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the plot in question and dismantle the eastern common wall of the plot and further threatened to include the 6 ft. wide vacant portion of the plot in dispute in the house of defendants no.2 & 3. Hence, the suit was filed.

(3.) Defendants/appellants contested the suit taking various preliminary objections and denying the averments on merits. Joint written statement was filed. Dismissal of the suit was sought by both the defendants.